"A tiny bit of civil disobedience," that with any luck, won't get folks in trouble.

In a matter of seconds, you too can "liberate" an old academic article from JSTOR.

On Monday afternoon, a group of online archivists released the "Aaron Swartz Memorial JSTOR Liberator." The initiative is a JavaScript-based bookmarklet that lets Internet users "liberate" an article, already in the public domain, from the online academic archive JSTOR. By running the script—which is limited to once per browser—a public domain academic article is downloaded to the user’s computer, then uploaded back to ArchiveTeam in a small act of protest against JSTOR's restrictive policies.

Swartz, who tragically committed suicide on January 11, 2013, was arrested and charged back in 2009 for having downloaded a massive cache of documents from the website. He faced criminal charges that could have lead to potentially months or years in a prison as a result (they were only dropped this morning). JSTOR did not immediately respond to requests for comment concerning this new tool. However, over the weekend, the organization did acknowledge it was "deeply saddened" by the Swartz tragedy.

"The case is one that we ourselves had regretted being drawn into from the outset, since JSTOR’s mission is to foster widespread access to the world’s body of scholarly knowledge," the organization wrote in an unsigned, undated statement. "At the same time, as one of the largest archives of scholarly literature in the world, we must be careful stewards of the information entrusted to us by the owners and creators of that content. To that end, Aaron returned the data he had in his possession and JSTOR settled any civil claims we might have had against him in June 2011."

"If you are scared about violating a TOS, then don't violate TOS."

Jason Scott, of ArchiveTeam, developed the piece of code to provide a way for Swartz’ supporters to engage in a small act of digital civil disobedience. He said his organization had planned this tool last year, but decided not to release it so as not to interfere with Swartz’ then-pending case.

"I would be really sad if I was indicted and sent to jail for this," he told Ars, noting that all the documents he and his supporters were "liberating" were already in the public domain. Scott argued that JSTOR had no right to impose additional restrictions on how these public domain articles were accessed, or what they were used for.

"It is to remind people of the threshold [Swartz] crossed, he would do things that were a little bit questionable, for good reasons," Scott added. "He would make leaps that were a little farther beyond and he did it during his young life. If it brings a little attention to him and how he lived in the world, [then that’s a good thing]. Even if it's a very tiny [act of protest]—that's not meant to destroy or damage JSTOR or anything like that."

JSTOR’s terms of service [TOS], for example, explicitly prohibit any "attempt to override, circumvent, or disable any encryption features or software protections employed in the JSTOR Platform;" and "undertake coordinated or systematic activity between or among two or more individuals and/or entities that, in the aggregate, constitutes downloading and/or distributing a significant portion of the Content," among other prohibitions.

"We absolutely don't recommend that people do this—don't do it," Scott said. "If you don’t want to do this, don't do it. If you are scared about violating a TOS, then don't violate TOS."

If these documents are already in the public domain, then why the restrictions?

Because that's not what JSTOR does. They take publications organize, allow you to do very detailed searches, and download right from them if you pay for their services. Think of it like going into barnes and nobles and buying a copy of Dante's Inferno. The book is in the public domain but you are paying for the paper, formatting, etc.

Edit before the barrage of downvotes: I'm not commenting whether they are right or wrong in not just letting people download them for free. The amount of bandwidth they'd actually use in minimal. Just pointing out they provide a service as well.

If these documents are already in the public domain, then why the restrictions?

Because that's not what JSTOR does. They take publications organize, allow you to do very detailed searches, and download right from them if you pay for their services. Think of it like going into barnes and nobles and buying a copy of Dante's Inferno. The book is in the public domain but you are paying for the paper, formatting, etc.

Sure—the question isn't paying for it versus not—I think it more has to do with the fact that JSTOR puts arbitrary restrictions on public domain works. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that while you can charge for something in the public domain (just like you can charge for something in Creative Commons, or open source), you can't arbitrarily restrict rights.

The key here is "authorized access". If you're connecting with intention to violate TOS, then by definition your access is not authorized. However, reading the Computer Fraud statue, I see that there's a requirement for more than $5000 in damage within one year. So I guess if you keep it to one public domain article filched per day, then you're safe from that particular statute. Doesn't mean that there might not be others.

"We absolutely don't recommend that people do this—don't do it," Scott said. "If you don’t want to do this, don't do it. If you are scared about violating a TOS, then don't violate TOS.

"... but if you do, the responsibility is entirely on you, even though I'm giving you the tool to do it and am implicitly encouraging you to do it. Have fun breaking the law, kids!"

Which law?

Technically, I think connecting to a network with intention of violating their TOS could be considered computer fraud. Just like what Swartz was charged with.

Violating a website's TOS is computer fraud? I'm in the UK but I'm pretty sure even the US isn't that messed-up.

And Swartz was charged because he went into a network closet and plugged in, not going to a publicly accessible site on the internet. It still didn't warrant anything like what they did to him of course.

"We absolutely don't recommend that people do this—don't do it," Scott said. "If you don’t want to do this, don't do it. If you are scared about violating a TOS, then don't violate TOS.

"... but if you do, the responsibility is entirely on you, even though I'm giving you the tool to do it and am implicitly encouraging you to do it. Have fun breaking the law, kids!"

Which law?

18 U.S.C. 1030. Also known as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Breaking a website's TOS is really covered by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?

Technically removing DRM from a Kindle ebook illegal under the DMCA. It's also against the Kindle TOS but I can't see anyone being prosecuted because of that. Besides which most TOS don't stand up to legal scrutiny.

If these documents are already in the public domain, then why the restrictions?

Because that's not what JSTOR does. They take publications organize, allow you to do very detailed searches, and download right from them if you pay for their services. Think of it like going into barnes and nobles and buying a copy of Dante's Inferno. The book is in the public domain but you are paying for the paper, formatting, etc.

Sure—the question isn't paying for it versus not—I think it more has to do with the fact that JSTOR puts arbitrary restrictions on public domain works. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that while you can charge for something in the public domain (just like you can charge for something in Creative Commons, or open source), you can't arbitrarily restrict rights.

I seem to recall Barnes and Noble getting a bit of bad press a few years back for putting DRM on some public domain ebooks. The books were free to download, but had to be through their service. Seems somewhat analogous (save the 'charging money for access' bit), although IANAL either so I'm not sure exactly how close it runs, especially since DRM removal has its own section of copyright law. Still interesting to note for perspective.

If these documents are already in the public domain, then why the restrictions?

Because that's not what JSTOR does. They take publications organize, allow you to do very detailed searches, and download right from them if you pay for their services. Think of it like going into barnes and nobles and buying a copy of Dante's Inferno. The book is in the public domain but you are paying for the paper, formatting, etc.

Sure—the question isn't paying for it versus not—I think it more has to do with the fact that JSTOR puts arbitrary restrictions on public domain works. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that while you can charge for something in the public domain (just like you can charge for something in Creative Commons, or open source), you can't arbitrarily restrict rights.

OK, so why does something in the "public domain" have only one source? Wouldn't it be simpler to simply set up a site and tell the content creators, "please deposit here"?

Basically, when you intentionally damage someone else's contractual obligations you are guilty of tortious interference, which is a civil offense (rather than a criminal one). You can't go to jail for it, but you can get sued.

And before you decry it, it is this same legal principle that prohibits your employer from asking for your passwords - that is tortious interference between you and whatever third party you have that contract with, which generally prohibit you from sharing your password.

Sure—the question isn't paying for it versus not—I think it more has to do with the fact that JSTOR puts arbitrary restrictions on public domain works. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that while you can charge for something in the public domain (just like you can charge for something in Creative Commons, or open source), you can't arbitrarily restrict rights.

If there are other copies, maybe they can't. But suppose I possess the only physical copy of a work that's clearly in the public domain, Mona Lisa's Sister by da Vinci, for example. I don't have to let others copy it; it's mine! However, I might decide to let others copy it for a license fee of $$,$$$ and with a contractual restriction preventing them from making further copies. I haven't read JSTOR's ToS, but I'd bet an age appropriate beverage there's a restriction on reproducing their material in there.

Violating such a license would be a civil matter, not a criminal matter, right? Tell it to Kim Dotcom.

Interesting that they would term this "civil disobedience". This smacks more of the philosophy of DOS attacks as civil disobedience as opposed to say, a sit in on the courthouse lawn. I don't know the back room reasoning that led to the aggressive charges against Aaron, but I don't like ArchiveTeam's brand of protest, either. It may be a bit trite, but two wrongs don't make a right- not in this instance.

Wait a minute... according to that article Swartz and his attorneys rejected six months or less of prison time as a plea bargain because they thought Swartz would win the case.That's a FAR cry from the "50 years" that keeps getting thrown around as evidence of overzealous prosecution.And if his lawyer knew he was suicidal, why the heck wasn't he on suicide watch.

This was a tragic event and should not have happened, but we need to keep in mind that JSTOR was not the party bringing 50+ year prison terms and felony charges against Swartz. They are quoted in the article as saying that once Swartz returned the downloaded articles, they had no beef with him. It doesn't make much sense, therefore, to take articles that JSTOR is fully justified in charging for, even if they are in the public domain. Everyone should understand that JSTOR is not charging for the articles, but for the aggregation, search capability and other features.

I understand that this could in a poetic way be paying homage to Aaron by having mass numbers of people commit a similar offense that caused him to get the hand of the government brought down on him.. sort of a "if everyone does it they can't stop us" type deal. But anyone upset by Swartz's death shouldn't be angry at JSTOR. They should be angry at the US government and prosecuting attorney, and the archaic law that turns anyone who violates a ToS into a felon.

What part of illegally attaching to a network is hard for people to understand? Yes, he was a genius. Yes, he created great technologies. Yes, he was a criminal.

He walked into a network closet and attached an unauthorized computer to a private network. Whether you think the articles should be freely available to any and all is irrelevant! We are a nation of LAWS, and HE BROKE THEM. Stop making him out to be a hero for this.

He committed these crimes to make a point, ala The Boston Tea Party (a week but still somewhat valid comparison). The DOJ also did what they did to make a point, i.e., computer crime is STILL CRIME. These people who call themselves hacktivists, anonymous, social engineers, etc., are by and large criminals committing crimes. Many of them are the modern day version of the back ally street thug, preying on people too stupid to not click a phishing link. They are not heroes. They are not a romanticized modern-day Robin Hood. No matter what they might do for good on occasion does not erase the crimes they commit.

Aaron was playing with fire. He burned himself. And there's the end of it. He burned HIMSELF. No one made him break into the network closet and attach his unauthorized computer to the private network. No one made him take his own life. It's tragic. It's awful. But it's on him.

Either someone has the facts wrong about the plea bargain, or there is no justifiable way to blame anyone other than Swartz for his death.

I get blaming the government for overly aggressive tactics and insane prison sentences if someone kills themselves because they don't want to spend literally the remainder of their life in prison. That's not just life-ruining, it's life-ending. I wouldn't consider a life behind bars a "real" life for anyone. I wouldn't blame someone nearly as much for suicide facing such a fate as for someone who was just depressed. But for 6 months (or less)? I can't even make sense of that. Why? Something is quite off here...

In reading this article, the government was apparently going to press for 6 months in prison. That's a far cry from the 35 years implied in the press. I've been pretty outraged by everything I've read surrounding the governments "overzealous" prosecution of Aaron, but now that I'm seeing this I'm feeling a little duped.

What's the real story here? I don't think Aaron should have spent any time in prison, but regardless, this six months doesn't sound overzealous to me. Is anyone else feeling a little misled here now?

What's the real story here? I don't think Aaron should have spent any time in prison, but regardless, this six months doesn't sound overzealous to me. Is anyone else feeling a little misled here now?

For what it's worth, there are consequences to being a convicted felon other than just prison time eg, employment, passports, voting, federal aid, etc. especially when there are 13 felonies under his name.

What's the real story here? I don't think Aaron should have spent any time in prison, but regardless, this six months doesn't sound overzealous to me. Is anyone else feeling a little misled here now?

For what it's worth, there are consequences to being a convicted felon other than just prison time eg, employment, passports, voting, federal aid, etc. especially when there are 13 felonies under his name.

And I think that would be really, really depressing.

Unfortunately it says in those articles that they rejected the bargain and were intending to go to court - essentially they were going to tough it out and fight it to the end. So the outcome was still to-be-determined.

It is still very tough to have to go to trial. Too bad the pressure was still too much.

Whether you think the articles should be freely available to any and all is irrelevant! We are a nation of LAWS, and HE BROKE THEM. Stop making him out to be a hero for this.

Is the United States still a nation of laws? America has become a country inhabited by two classes of people: those who make the laws, and those who are subject to them. Financial catastrophe, illegal wiretaps, torture: some people are immune to the most important laws. Others have their lives ruined for the most insignificant infractions. (If you have any doubts, read Glen Greenwald's With Liberty and Justice For Some. The stories he tells are not new, but together they are powerful.)

If the law is written by the few, in the interests of the few, and applied to the many, but not the few, is it legitimate? If a law is not legitimate, is it wrong to break it? Or is the law of the powerful, no matter how corrupt, the last word? Of course not. The rule of law cannot be sustained by granting it unconditional supremacy. No law can be too big to fail.

Swartz is a hero, not because he broke the law: we all do that. He is a hero because he did so in pursuit of the public interest. He is a hero because he had the courage to pursue an ideal, while so many others avert their eyes from the the public good, preferring to defend the private interests of themselves or the powerful.

Swartz was a scapegoat: "a goat upon whose head are symbolically placed the sins of the people" (Mirriam-Webster). For we all break the law. The academics who produce the journal articles he is accused of "stealing" benefit not at all from their sale (on the contrary: the costs of the system of commercial publishing are tremendous). Yet academics follow the law only at our convenience. We assign copyright to a publisher, fencing out the hoi poloi, then distribute articles among ourselves with impunity.

Had Swartz been a senator or a bank CEO, or one of their children, this would have gone nowhere. Why did the DOJ pursue him so aggressively when JSTOR asked them to back off and MIT showed no interest? Why him, when we are all guilty? Where most of us break the law for selfishness or convenience, he did so on principle. He had to pay the price. And, it seems, the hate.

If these documents are already in the public domain, then why the restrictions?

Because that's not what JSTOR does. They take publications organize, allow you to do very detailed searches, and download right from them if you pay for their services. Think of it like going into barnes and nobles and buying a copy of Dante's Inferno. The book is in the public domain but you are paying for the paper, formatting, etc.

Edit before the barrage of downvotes: I'm not commenting whether they are right or wrong in not just letting people download them for free. The amount of bandwidth they'd actually use in minimal. Just pointing out they provide a service as well.

....The rule of law cannot be sustained by granting it unconditional supremacy. No law can be too big to fail.

Swartz is a hero, not because he broke the law: we all do that. He is a hero because he did so in pursuit of the public interest. He is a hero because he had the courage to pursue an ideal, while so many others avert their eyes from the the public good, preferring to defend the private interests of themselves or the powerful....

There were a lot of ways Swartz could have pursued the public interest in this particular instance. Willfully breaking the law was the avenue he chose and he faced charges for it. Once those charges were filed, he could have chosen to fight the charges to the very end via the court system, which is another way he could have "pursued the public interest" as it were. He could have recruited many other institutions to his cause, the EFF, MIT, etc. If Jamie Thomas can warrant three trials and loads of press coverage, then Aaron Swartz should have been able to shake the pillars of legal heaven. Instead he committed suicide, denying him his eventual legal exoneration and certainly failing to bring the fight against the system that you claim was his aim in all of this.

His death was a tragedy, but I don't think it brands him a martyr for the cause.

With the benefit of not being Google, beholden to shareholders. Remember what happened to Google Knol? Not there were much good stuff there to began with. But a lot of stuff were lost when their creators didn't "migrate" them before the deadline.

More recently, didn't Google suddenly and unilaterally decided to end free Google App for Business?

Does Google have a long-term preservation program for the long term storage and preservation. (JSTOR originally stand for journal storage, so libraries can reclaim shelve spaces.)

the government was apparently going to press for 6 months in prison. That's a far cry from the 35 years implied in the press. I've been pretty outraged by everything I've read surrounding the governments "overzealous" prosecution of Aaron, but now that I'm seeing this I'm feeling a little duped.

Hold on. They were offering him this choice:

1. Maintain your innocence, face trial, risk the maximum sentence if you are found guilty—and we won't reveal what sentence we think is appropriate until the sentencing phase (after the trial), but if history is a guide, we'll press for the maximum, as this is an adversarial system.

or

2. Plead guilty to all 13 counts, serve up to six months in prison, and live the rest of your life as a convicted felon, with all the burdens that places on you. Very likely this would also carry a risk of the judge tacking on conditions to your release, such as all Internet use under supervision, with no more disruptive, activist-type stunts, or back to prison you go. What's more, pleading guilty may well establish for everyone else that your actions were in fact violations of the laws we said they were, which will work out very well for us the next time someone decides to violate a website's terms of service, slightly slow down a database, or use someone else's network to download copyrighted material with a completely unproven intent to distribute.

the government was apparently going to press for 6 months in prison. That's a far cry from the 35 years implied in the press. I've been pretty outraged by everything I've read surrounding the governments "overzealous" prosecution of Aaron, but now that I'm seeing this I'm feeling a little duped.

Hold on. They were offering him this choice:

1. Maintain your innocence, face trial, risk the maximum sentence if you are found guilty—and we won't reveal what sentence we think is appropriate until the sentencing phase (after the trial), but if history is a guide, we'll press for the maximum, as this is an adversarial system.

or

2. Plead guilty to all 13 counts, serve up to six months in prison, and live the rest of your life as a convicted felon, with all the burdens that places on you. Very likely this would also carry a risk of the judge tacking on conditions to your release, such as all Internet use under supervision, with no more disruptive, activist-type stunts, or back to prison you go. What's more, pleading guilty may well establish for everyone else that your actions were in fact violations of the laws we said they were, which will work out very well for us the next time someone decides to violate a website's terms of service, slightly slow down a database, or use someone else's network to download copyrighted material with a completely unproven intent to distribute.

Thank you for taking the time to write this up. I don't know how I missed making this connection. You've explained it very well here.